By Yu Fu

US-China Trade War: A Decline of American Soft Power?

Since July 6,
2018, China and the United States have been engaged in a trade war involving
the mutual placement of tariffs. Recently, the disputes between the two
superpowers reached a climax where Huawei was placed on a trade blacklist and
became a potential bargaining chip in a US-China trade deal. However, no matter
who wins the trade battle at the end, the US is in danger of becoming a big
power with a damaged prestige sustaining a shaky liberal world order.

Ever since the
concept of soft power was proposed by political scientist Joseph Nye Jr. in the
late 1980s, it has been regarded as an inalienable part of the power of the US,
just as Nye asserts in his book Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics, “Seduction is always more effective than coercion, and many
values like democracy, human rights, and individual opportunities are deeply
seductive.”

Historically, the
United States achieved a series of political aims through its culture,
political values, strategic communications, foreign assistance and civic
actions, including defeating the Soviet Union by bolstering its image as the
leader of the free world and a superior alternative to Soviet authoritarianism.
The post-World War II world order, which was backed up by the United Nations,
the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade
Organization (WTO), were built and guaranteed by the US and its allies.

The US began to
exude soft power even since it was born as a republic democratic state and kept
its attraction for a long time. America was a shining beacon because of its moral
authority and its post-war commitment as the chief promoter of human rights and
democracy. The state used to be a strong supporter of free trade. As early as
in the 1940s, in order to integrate and rebuild the post-war economy, the US
led the creation of the multilateral General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
which concluded a series of negotiating “rounds” to lower trade barriers. Later
in the 1990s, the WTO was created with the aim of “ensuring that trade flows as
smoothly, predictably and freely as possible”. For decades, the US made “free
market economics” the only legitimate economic pattern and enticed other
countries to follow its path.

More recently, we
can see the irresistible attraction to democracy displayed by the “color
revolutions”, the symbolically-named peaceful uprisings in parts of the former
Soviet Union. Some American values and its commitment to be the “world
policeman” reflected in its soft power are in fact appreciated by a large
number of people around the world. In the book Details of Democracy:
Observation of Contemporary American Politics, written by China-born,
America-educated political scientist Liu Yu, we can see a normal housewife
defeating a pharmaceutical giant, a “department level” officer losing his job for
using government vehicles for private purposes, normal people impacting the
wage growth of politicians through protests, and etc. The author attributes the
success of people’s
struggles in the US to the democratic system characterized with freedom and
equality and guaranteed by the balance of power. This best-selling book was the
“Book of the Year” in 2009 in China.

The US is an
example of how “soft power” helps to prevent decline and form a strong alliance
through consensus. However, presently, the attraction of American values is
shrinking, both for people around the world and for states including US allies.
It seems the US is leading us into a world of realism where every state strives
to pursue self-interest and attain as many resources as possible.

In the current
rivalry about high technology, “security concerns” and “fair trade” sound more
like excuses to some extent, while “protectionism” continues to rear its ugly
head. The former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon had made it clear
that driving the telecommunications giant, Huawei, out
of Western markets is “10 times more important” than a trade deal. The US
administration blocking of Huawei was not based on evidence. It was also
reported that the US government was thinking about widening its trade ban to
include companies such as surveillance camera giant Hikvision and facial recognition giant Sensetime. And it was not surprising to see US
President Donald Trump repeatedly called on China to abandon its Made in
China 2025 industrialization plan which focuses on high-tech fields including
automotive, semiconductors, IT and robotics etc. Huawei is not the only case.

As
Joseph S. Nye tells us, to “get others to do your will”, states must remain
attractive based on shared values and purposes, rather than constraints and threats.

The book American
Trap showed us the American takeover of a
French national champion Alstom based on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
(FCPA). To some degree, American Trap functions as a cautionary tale for
multinational companies increasingly facing the threat of litigation when they
expand business in the US. The story of the Frenchman Frederic Pierucci
reminded readers of the arrest of Huawei’s finance chief Meng Wanzhou.

The Huawei case
reflects the decline of US attraction, but such a trend has started much
earlier. During the 2016 United States presidential election, both Donald Trump
and Hillary Clinton make the election a farce full of personal abuse, startling
scandals and black box operations, allowing the dark side of American democracy to be
exposed to the international community. It is pertinent for public servants to
allow government business to continue regardless of which party is in power and
to maintain political neutrality during elections. In Trump’s victory speech however, he felt proud to say, “We have over 200 generals and admirals that
have endorsed our campaign”. Considering Trump’s presidency to be a disaster,
the Director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program even appealed for
the public to vote for Hillary Clinton and abandoned the principle of neutrality which
he followed for decades. Nearly all major news outlets which were known their
tradition of being objective and influential were involved in the election
battle through bias news coverage and declared their political preferences
clearly to influence the election process.

Other than the US’ withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and
Trans-Pacific Partnership, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy had gone so
far to the extent that he had even tried to withdraw the US from the Arms Trade
Treaty, Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and even the World Trade
Organization (WTO) by censuring WTO for “sabotaging US trade”. In other
aspects, Trump made it clear to US allies that “there is no such thing as a
free lunch”, making a decision to cut some USD 700 million in aid to Honduras,
Guatemala and El Salvador and designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a
foreign terrorist organization regardless of opposition.

A 25-nation Pew
Research Center survey released in October 2018 showed Trump’s international ratings remained low,
especially among key allies. Although Trump still got some positive marks, a
median of only 27 percent said they have confidence in President Trump to do
the right thing in world affairs; 70 percent lack confidence in him. Currently,
the United States continues to risk its cooperation with allies such as India
and South Korea on critical security issues by expanding its ban on Iranian oil
exports worldwide.

As Joseph S. Nye
tells us, to “get others to do your will”, states must remain attractive based
on shared values and purposes, rather than constraints and threats. The real
fear is that Huawei is neither the first bomb between the two superpowers, nor
the last. The new “tech cold war” somehow terrifies countries and corporations
which have strong trade ties with the US. The “America first” policy repeatedly
puts US allies in an awkward dilemma: one side is the aggressive US which
dominates nearly the whole world, the other side are irreplaceable cooperative
partners like China and Iran. Singapore’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr
Vivian Balakrishnan has appealed publicly that the US should take into account
China’s increasing
influence on the global stage and its “legitimate” interests in
wanting to shape evolving norms, accepting the rise of China. After all, as
what the ancient Chinese story of King Yu tamed the flood indicates, communication and dialogues are advisable solutions for disputes.